Some great arguments against this popular belief, article from atheism.about.com

Reversing Atheists' Critiques of Religious Violence:

A common criticism which atheists raise against religion is how violent religion and religious believers have been in the past. People have slaughtered each other in large numbers either because of differences in religious beliefs or because of other differences which are further justified and intensified through religious rhetoric. Either way, religion has a lot of blood on its hands. Can the same be said for atheists and atheism? Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No, because atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology.

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:

None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...[1]

Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism:

A popular image of the Nazis is that they were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi. The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler[2] was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes. Hitler Was Not an Atheist...[3]

Isn't Atheism the Same as Communism? Doesn't Atheism Lead to Communism?:

A common complaint made by theists, typically those of the fundamentalist variety, is that atheism and/or humanism are essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism and humanism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. Evidence indicates that bigotry and prejudice towards atheists in America is due in no small part to anti-communist activism by conservatives Christians in America, so this claimed connection has had serious consequences for American atheists. Atheism and Communism are Not the Same...[4]

Militant Atheists are Atheist Fundamentalists, a New Atheism:

There seems to be an increasing number of people responding to atheist critiques of religion or theism by labeling the person a "fundamentalist" atheist. The label is problematic because there are no essential or "fundamental" beliefs for an atheist to be "fundamentalist" about. So why do people use the label? Why do so many people feel that the label is appropriate? This seems to be mostly due to misunderstandings about and prejudice against fundamentalism and the label cannot be applied to atheists. Fundamentalist Atheism / Atheistic Fundamentalism Does Not Exist...[5]

Atheists are Intolerant for Criticizing Religion, Theism:

There are several myths here, all tightly intertwined for the apparent purpose of getting atheists to cease making uncomfortable and unwelcome criticisms of religion and theism. Religious believers, mostly Christians, are responding to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religion and theism aren't owed any deference or respect. Criticism of Religion & Theism is Not Intolerance...[6]

Being Irreligious is Risky, Short-Sighted Behavior Like Crime:

Many associate atheism with anti-social and even criminal behavior, but such assertions are usually little more than that: bare assertions without substantiating evidence or arguments. The most people offer may be question-begging claims about religion and god being necessary for moral behavior. Here, however, we have a new twist which claims that there is a physiological, biological reason behind people - or at least men - rejecting religion and gods. Unfortunately, it's rife with flaws. Being Irreligious is Not Like Criminal Behavior...[7]

If People Fail to Believe in God, They Will Believe in Anything:

Many religious theists think that their God creates or otherwise provides a set of objective standards against which they can measure all their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, etc. Without their god, they can't imagine how anyone could possibly differentiate true from false beliefs, moral from immoral behaviors, proper from improper attitudes. Atheists who don't believe in any gods are thus capable of believing and doing absolutely anything, having nothing at all to hold them back. Will Atheists Believe in Anything?[8]

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:

None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...

While the rest of them completely match evidence. This one does not. There are likely some communist zealot who have killed some clergy because their beliefs did not match up with the Communist party line, which included atheism. However, there hasn't been one recorded incident of a mass killing in this regards. Not one from Communists, (though there a few recorded ones in South America by right wing death squads who attacked Nuns and other clergy in Mass for espousing "Liberation Theology" which is when Cristianity alligns with Communism.) Which means the number for the Communists is likely to be well below 10,000, and it would not suprise me at all if it was below 1000.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

^^ I agree. In fact, one might say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be killed in the "name of atheism" because atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief on one particular issue. It's passive. People are killed for active reasons, not passive ones.

The thing is, there's at least two kinds of atheists. Those who passively don't believe and leave it at that, and those who actively don't believe and argue against religious beliefs because of it. In other words, there's a passive form of atheism, and an active form of it. Similarly, there are passive theists (typical believers, who are content with their beliefs) and active theists (evangelists, not limited to Christians, who try to convert others). So no, it's not impossible for someone to kill someone else "in the name of atheism". Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. I would also say that killing in the name of some ideology which might incorporate a form of atheism (like communism) is in no way killing in the name of atheism.

^^ I agree. In fact, one might say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be killed in the "name of atheism" because atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief on one particular issue. It's passive. People are killed for active reasons, not passive ones.

I would also like to add to this, that Atheism does not include a divine instruction manual that tells its followers to kill non followers. However, most religions have exactly this, and use it as justification for evil. Comparing mass murderers who are atheist to mass murderers who are religious is just a false comparison.

The thing is, there's at least two kinds of atheists. Those who passively don't believe and leave it at that, and those who actively don't believe and argue against religious beliefs because of it. In other words, there's a passive form of atheism, and an active form of it. Similarly, there are passive theists (typical believers, who are content with their beliefs) and active theists (evangelists, not limited to Christians, who try to convert others). So no, it's not impossible for someone to kill someone else "in the name of atheism". Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. I would also say that killing in the name of some ideology which might incorporate a form of atheism (like communism) is in no way killing in the name of atheism.

A good point, but I think there is a distinction to be made here. An "active" atheist (or as Hitch might say, an anti-theist) is not being compelled by divine authority to do so. I am not aware of any active Atheist who gives believers a choice of convert or die. Being intellectually aggressive is not the same as being physically aggressive. Unless you have Jedi powers, you're probably not going to kill someone with your mind. Active atheists can also easily point to violence and hate constantly being perpetrated by religious folk of many orientations, and feel genuinely justified in reducing the human suffering that results from those actions. Whereas the actively religious, whether intentionally or not, contribute to and even promote this suffering with righteous zeal. Such activity is a threat to the freedom and security of all peoples, since there doesn't seem to be a group that isn't hated by some religious wacko, or who wouldn't get squashed needlessly under their boots for the glory of some god. The sooner we get rid of this religious nonsense, the sooner we can stop people from suffering and dying because of it. I'm not talking about violence or genocide. I'm talking about assimilating delusional people to the real world, and freeing them from emotional slavery. I don't like seeing my fellow humans suffering needlessly, and won't put up with it, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

The thing is, there's at least two kinds of atheists. Those who passively don't believe and leave it at that, and those who actively don't believe and argue against religious beliefs because of it. In other words, there's a passive form of atheism, and an active form of it. Similarly, there are passive theists (typical believers, who are content with their beliefs) and active theists (evangelists, not limited to Christians, who try to convert others). So no, it's not impossible for someone to kill someone else "in the name of atheism". Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. I would also say that killing in the name of some ideology which might incorporate a form of atheism (like communism) is in no way killing in the name of atheism.

But even in the case of the "active atheists," the banner is passive: "We don't." Active promotion of atheism still has quite a bit of passive character, IMO. Certainly, atheist ads, etc., that have been in the news in the last couple of years have always been quite passive--about the most aggressive have been something like "Now, you know this stuff isn't really true, don't you?"

I would consider myself somewhat of an active/positive atheist: I would like to convince people that it's an overall negative to believe in supernatural entities who tell people what to do. Yet I can't quite feel ARDENT about that--I'm not arguing that "I have something," I'm still arguing "You have nothing."

But even in the case of the "active atheists," the banner is passive: "We don't." Active promotion of atheism still has quite a bit of passive character, IMO. Certainly, atheist ads, etc., that have been in the news in the last couple of years have always been quite passive--about the most aggressive have been something like "Now, you know this stuff isn't really true, don't you?"

Oh, I see. You mean passive as in not aggressive, whereas I meant passive as in not assertive. Does what I said make more sense now?

I'm aware that atheism can be described as agnostic/gnostic, positive/negative, strong/weak, and that the stronger version is meant to include an ASSERTION that no gods exist.

But, IMO, even with assertion included--the position isn't "fully positive" because it asserts the ABSENCE of something (a god). IME even the positive assertion of the absence of something is....not particularly forceful--not something that usually results in death (the point of the OP). The position of asserting the absence of something always has a tone of "retreat." A forceful assertion that gods shouldn't be believed in is a still a call back to a "neutral default" perspective.

I'm aware that atheism can be described as agnostic/gnostic, positive/negative, strong/weak, and that the stronger version is meant to include an ASSERTION that no gods exist.

But, IMO, even with assertion included--the position isn't "fully positive" because it asserts the ABSENCE of something (a god). IME even the positive assertion of the absence of something is....not particularly forceful--not something that usually results in death (the point of the OP). The position of asserting the absence of something always has a tone of "retreat." A forceful assertion that gods shouldn't be believed in is a still a call back to a "neutral default" perspective.

I don't agree. First off, "passive" does not suggest any of this, so your earlier statement that atheism is passive in nature is odd to me. Second, even if you are asserting the negation of something, instead of asserting the something, I would not consider it to have the tone of a "retreat". A retreat is generally not considered assertive, for example. It's a contradiction in terms to talk about an "aggressive retreat". So it sounds like you're thinking of this in a linear fashion, but it doesn't really work because theism isn't itself linear. You don't have a progression like with a car's gear system, so you can't exactly pull back to a "neutral default" position, especially since atheism isn't a "neutral default" position.

And I disagree with you (in the context of the OP, especially): The assertions of atheism are tame and neutral (they don't assert anything SUBSTANTIVE--even when they're in the form of an assertion). They have not, and are not, likely to act as an incitement to violence from their maker: i.e., people have not and are very unlikely ever to be killed in the name of atheism.

And I disagree with you (in the context of the OP, especially): The assertions of atheism are tame and neutral (they don't assert anything SUBSTANTIVE--even when they're in the form of an assertion). They have not, and are not, likely to act as an incitement to violence from their maker: i.e., people have not and are very unlikely ever to be killed in the name of atheism.

As I already answered this particular point, I will simply quote myself:

So no, it's not impossible for someone to kill someone else "in the name of atheism". Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. I would also say that killing in the name of some ideology which might incorporate a form of atheism (like communism) is in no way killing in the name of atheism.

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:

None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...

Well, I'm an atheist and I live in a post-communist country. I have problem with this argument because actually many people were tortured and killed just because they believed in Christian or Jewish god and didn't want to abort their religion. It's clearly killing in the name of atheism.

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:

None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...

Well, I'm an atheist and I live in a post-communist country. I have problem with this argument because actually many people were tortured and killed just because they believed in Christian or Jewish god and didn't want to abort their religion. It's clearly killing in the name of atheism.

How so explain? And while your explaining it, think of what an atheist or atheism is, "Please!".

Logged

We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

^^^Then when Muslims kill people for converting to Christianity and not "aborting their religion", are they also killing in the name of atheism? Probably not. But, yes, people have been killed for having a religion that someone else did not want them to have.

You might have an argument, I suppose, if the atheist people killed the religious folks for being religious and not atheist.

Even though a communist government can be described as atheistic and secularist, it only represents a small subset of those two groups. Secular atheists from democratic countries, for example, don't tolerate torturing and killing believers simply because they won't recant their beliefs.

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?:

None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...

Well, I'm an atheist and I live in a post-communist country. I have problem with this argument because actually many people were tortured and killed just because they believed in Christian or Jewish god and didn't want to abort their religion. It's clearly killing in the name of atheism.

My past relatives lived in a "non-white" country til 1492,the predominantly white and Spanish "Christians" liked to kill us because we were "savages" who were wrong about our religious "views". The Christians were hardly killed in the name of Atheism as you put it,but because they got in the way of what the Government wanted to accomplish,much like the "Christians" killed us Indians in America,we got in the way of progress.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

You know folks, if we end up killing each other over an argument about who kills each other the most, winning probably won't feel all that good.

Humans have used excuse after excuse to kill others. Religion is a frickin' bonus, because it lets folks claim that their god said it was okay. Communists needed the okay of their leaders. Which they got. But bureaucracies were probably involved from time to time, which makes killing much more of a chore.

When religious beliefs are the cause of a persons death, it is usually because someone with other religious beliefs thinks they should be dead. And while I'm sure one could document cases where someone who was an atheist killed a religious person or family or group or village or whatever simply because of the religious disagreement, for the most part, totalitarian regimes have done most of their killing for more grounded reasons. You know, like ethnicity, race, over resource disputes, women, water rights, etc. They just used the authority of their strong political position as the justification for pulling the trigger.

We have way to many reasons to kill each other. If we could get rid of religion, then we would have fewer, and perhaps more would survive. In the meantime, a 14 year old girl in Bangladesh was recently ordered to receive 101 lashes because she managed to get herself raped by a man. Which in itself isn't that bad, except that the guy was married, hence I guess she was guilty of adultery. Seventy lashes in she collapsed, was rushed to the hospital, and died. (In all fairness, the guy was supposed to get 201 lashes, but he escaped after the first couple of lashes, and I guess that's that for him).They called her death a suicide at first, the autopsy saying that she had suffered no external injuries, but the family insisted on a bit of justice, and the government stepped in.

The lashing was done under Sharia law. The one thing muslims have that tea partiers lust after.

Anyway, history sucks bad enough as it is. Lets learn what we can from it and then do something about making sure history classes 50 years form now don't have to cover the great atheist stampede of 2016 or something.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen."

Quote

"During the French Revolution French society considered the prospect of an atheist state.............Cloots maintained that "Reason" and "Truth" were "supremely intolerant" and that the daylight of atheism would make the lesser lights of religious night disappear.[3] The state then further pushed its campaign of dechristianization,[4] which included removal and destruction of religious objects from places of worship and the transformation of churches into "Temples of the Goddess of Reason", culminating in a celebration of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral.

Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call "the first modern genocide",[1][8] (a term some historians reject[9][10])."

Quote

Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 of the The Mexican Constitution of 1917 as originally enacted were anticlerical and enormously restricted religious freedoms.[12] At first the anticlerical provisions were only sporadically enforced, but when President Plutarco Elías Calles took office, he enforced the provisions strictly.[12] Calles’ Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state[13] and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico.[14]

All religions had their properties appropriated, and these became part of government wealth. There was a forced expulsion of foreign clergy and the seizure of Church properties............

On June 14, 1926, President Calles enacted an anticlerical legislation known formally as The Law Reforming the Penal Code and unofficially as the Calles Law.[16] His anti-Catholic actions included outlawing religious orders, depriving the Church of property rights and depriving the clergy of civil liberties, including their right to trial by jury (in cases involving anti-clerical laws) and the right to vote

Due to the strict enforcement of anti-clerical laws, people in strongly Catholic areas, especially the states of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Colima and Michoacán, began to oppose him, and this opposition led to the Cristero War from 1926 to 1929, which was characterized by brutal atrocities by both sides. Some Cristeros applied terrorist tactics, while the Mexican government persecuted the clergy, killing suspected Cristeros and supporters and often retaliating against innocent individuals.[21] On May 28, 1926, Calles was awarded a medal of merit from the head of Mexico's Scottish rite of Freemasonry for his actions against the Catholics.[22]

Quote

Religion is the opiate of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious.[28] Lenin states:

Quote

State atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the totalitarian regime installed after World War II, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether.[29] The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns were expelled in 1946.

The campaign against religion peaked in the 1960s. Beginning in 1967 the Albanian authorities began a violent campaign to try to eliminate religious life in Albania. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions were either closed down or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, or workshops by the end of 1967

Quote

Between 1900 and 1950, 90% of the population occasionally resorted to Buddhist rites or temples and 99% were affected by Buddhist contributions to Chinese thought and behavior.[39] After the 1949 Chinese Revolution, China began a period of rule by the Communist Party of China.[40][41] For much of its early history, that government maintained under Marxist thought that religion would ultimately disappear, and characterized it as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.

Quote

Originally more tolerant of religion, Cuba began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy.[49] In 1961 The Cuban government confiscated Catholic schools, including the Jesuit school Fidel Castro had attended. In 1965 it exiled two hundred priests.[50]

Quote

The Communist Party of Cuba defines one of its aims as "the gradual overcoming of religious beliefs by materialistic scientific propaganda and the cultural advancement of the workers."[43] From 1976 to 1992, the Constitution of Cuba contained a clause stating that the "socialist state...bases its activity on, and educates the people in, the scientific materialist concept of the universe". In 1992, the Communist Party of Cuba has allowed religious believers to join.[43] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a "secular state" rather than atheistic.

Quote

State atheism in the Soviet Union (gosateizm) attempted to stop the spread of religious beliefs as well as remove "prerevolutionary remnants".[52] Although all religions were persecuted,[53] the regime's efforts to eradicate religion, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions, and were affected by higher state interests.

From the late 1920s to the late 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers.[citation needed] Anti-religious and atheistic propaganda was implemented into every portion of soviet life: in schools, communist organizations such as the Young Pioneer Organization, and the media.

Despite the Soviet Union's attempts to eliminate religion,[59][60][61] other former USSR and anti-religious nations, such as Armenia,[62] Kazakhstan,[63] Uzbekistan,[64] Turkmenistan,[65] Kyrgyzstan,[66] Tajikistan,[67] Belarus,[68][69] Moldova,[70] Albania,[71] and Georgia[72] have high religious populations

Quote

North Korea's government exercises virtual total control over society and imposes the cult of personality of Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung, described as a political religion. Their ideology has been described as "state-sanctioned atheism".[79] Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[80] free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea, as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[81][82] Cardinal Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk has said that, "There's no knowledge of priests surviving persecution that came in the late forties, when 166 priests and religious were killed or kidnapped." which includes the Roman Catholic bishop of Pyongyang, Francis Hong Yong-ho.[83] The Juche ideology, based on Korean ultranationalism, calls on people to "avoid spiritual deference to outside influences", which was interpreted as including religion originating outside of Korea.[43]

Plus, North Korea is about as Communist as pre-WW2-Japan. The leader is an immortal God-Emperor like the God-Emperors before him. Pop quiz ... who's the president of North Korea? Kim Jong-Un, right?Nope, the current official leader of North Korea is Kim Il-Sung who has been busy, these past two decades ... being an embalmed corpse. And both Kim Il-Sung and his son, Kim Jong-Il were said to have magical powers. Magic? An afterlife? Yeah, that's communism alright.

Logged

Science: I'll believe it when I see itFaith: I'll see it when I believe it

Every single one of those governments you mentioned is totalitarian in nature. And religious governments can and often are just as restrictive about other religions.

There's no atheist states listed that are not totalitarian. Coincidence?

You can find some pretty bad religious countries that are dictatorships (Saudi Arabia)and some pretty bad non-religious countries that are dictatorships (North Korea). The one thing they have in common is--wait for it-- DICTATORS! Seems like the way to go is not to have dictatorships.

Having said that, the nicest places to live on the planet today tend to be democratic countries, not dictatorships, that are also non-religious, secular, leaning toward atheist. Places like Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Scandinavia. In those countries you have good social welfare, low crime, low prison populations, and low poverty rates. And, not coincidentally, low rates of religious belief.

Secular does not mean "paradise" but it also does not mean "persecute and kill religious people". Secular means you are free to practice a religion if you choose, nobody is beheading anybody and people are far more likely to solve problems by science and rational thinking than by prayer.

And, surprise, in those rational secular countries they have fewer social problems than in the god-soaked countries like the US where people are doing the modern equivalent of tossing people into volcanoes to stop the eruptions. As long as we think that sex is an evil sin that no teenager should engage in or know anything about, we will continue to have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortions among the industrialized countries. As long as we battle scientific education because our religious faith is so very fragile, we will trail behind India, China and Western Europe in turning out engineers, medical researchers and environmental experts.

You have to dig up some pretty huge piles of crap, humanity-wise, to make your side look better. That should be a little embarrassing.

Why should that embarass me? All I simply had to do to dig up some "pretty huge piles of crap" is Google the words "State Atheism". If that brings up "huge piles of crap" at the top of the list and all the way down to the bottom of the list then that's not my fault.

Now I don't believe all atheists are like that but neither are all Christians like those that faught in the Crusades. But just because Christendom is bloodthirsty doesn't give atheism the moral high ground. All it means is that a lot of people are blood thirsty. Some are religious and some are not. The fact that the religious twist scripture to justify their bloodthirst does make them worse, but it's certainly not enough to give atheists enough of a difference to brag about it.

Logged

Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So, since you were looking anyway, Jstwebbrowsing, perhaps you could tell me how many atheist governments there have been through history, and how much bloodshed they're responsible for? I think it's going to be really hard to find, well, any, before the 19th century at the earliest (and that's really pushing it). Here's the thing. You went for the low-hanging fruit, the obvious examples of totalitarian communist governments, all of which are very recent, historically speaking. I don't think you'll find much besides that, whereas history is full of examples of people killing other people in the name of their god or religious beliefs.

Sure, a power-hungry 'atheist' can do lots of damage if he puts his mind to it and has a totalitarian government to back him up. But I think it's unlikely that you'll find that sort of thing outside of totalitarian governments, whereas religious violence happens much more frequently.